Tom Doyle Wins Halt to Sale of Home He, Husband of 56 Years Shared

Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Tom Doyle in the living of the apartment he shared with William Cornwell from 1961 until Cornwell's death two years ago. | DONNA ACETO
Tom Doyle in the living room of the apartment he shared with William Cornwell from 1961 until Cornwell's death two years ago. | DONNA ACETO

In a promising first step for a gay man fighting to hold onto the West Village home he shared with his late partner for 53 years, a Manhattan Surrogate Court judge has blocked sale of the property by the dead man’s nieces and nephews and ordered them to show cause why Tom Doyle, as their uncle’s “surviving spouse,” should not be declared “the sole heir” to the property.

In a November 1 ruling, Judge Nora Anderson issued a temporary restraining order against four nieces and nephews of William Cornwell selling the townhouse at 69 Horatio Street he purchased in 1979 and where he lived in a garden apartment with Doyle beginning in 1961.

Anderson's show cause order gave the four until November 18 "or as soon thereafter as counsel may be heard."

Cornwell and Doyle began their relationship in 1958, and Cornwell had purchased wedding rings for the couple after New York legalized same-sex marriage in 2011. According to Doyle, however, Cornwell’s declining health prevented the men from making the trip to the city Marriage Bureau on Worth Street prior to Cornwell’s death in 2014.

Cornwell had left the property to Doyle in his will, but that will had only one witness, while New York law requires two. Arthur Z. Schwartz, one of Doyle’s attorneys, told Gay City News that he believes there is no way to challenge what he sees as an ironclad requirement for the will.

Judge Anderson had previously appointed Sheila McNichols, the daughter of Cornwell’s sister Elsie, and James Michael Cornwell, the son of his brother Harry, as co-administrators of Cornwell’s estate and authorized them and James Michael Cornwell's sister and brother, Carole Ann DeMaio and Vint James Cornwell, to put the property up for sale. After entering into a contract with a prospective buyer for more than $7 million, the nieces and nephews offered to allow Doyle, who is 85, to stay in his home for five years and to pay him a $250,000 cut from the proceeds of the building he and Cornwell managed for the past 37 years and lived in for 55 years.

Schwartz and his co-counsel, Jamie L. Wolf, filed suit claiming that time Cornwell and Doyle spent vacationing in New Hope, Pennsylvania, over the years qualified them as common law spouses in that state. Though New York State does not have a legal category of common law spouse (and nor does Pennsylvania since 2005), if the couple qualified for that status in the years prior to 2005, New York State would, under existing precedent, recognize such a marriage.

One wrinkle in the argument, of course, is that it requires the retroactive application of last year’s US Supreme Court marriage equality ruling to the years when Doyle and Cornwell vacationed in New Hope, a point on which there are no clear legal guidelines.

When Sheila McNichols originally learned that she and her cousins were eligible to inherit the townhouse, she offered to yield her share to Doyle in return for his leaving the property to her in his will. McNichols, however, failed to convince her cousins to go along with that plan, and so the four of them proceeded to put the townhouse on the market.

The wedding rings Bill Cornwell bought for him and Tom Doyle. | DONNA ACTO
The wedding rings Bill Cornwell bought for himself and Tom Doyle. | DONNA ACETO

The New York Times quoted DeMaio as speculating that perhaps her uncle and Doyle were just “friends” or “great companions” – who shared a one-bedroom apartment for 53 years. DeMaio told Gay City News that the Times mischaracterized her comments, but she declined to elaborate. Sheila McNichols also declined comment.

James Michael Cornwell and Vint James Cornwell could not be reached for comment. In an affidavit filed in this case, Doyle wrote that James Michael Cornwell responded to news of William Cornwell’s death by saying, “Now I get a windfall from my rich uncle.”

Schwartz told Gay City News, via email,“The entry of a Temporary Restraining Order by the Surrogate is a great step forward, since it indicates that at least, based on our papers, she believes that we have made a plausible legal case that Tom Doyle and Bill Cornwell were married, and should be treated as such for purposes of inheritance. This is the first step in litigation which will go on for a while, and will probably end up in the NY Court of Appeals, but the blocking of the sale of the house gives Tom Doyle some well deserved piece of mind.”

Updated 5:17 pm, July 20, 2018
Today’s news:
Share on TwitterTweet
Share on Facebook

Don’t miss our updates:

Reader feedback

Joann Prinzivalli says:
One thought on a possible settlement (though I caution, I am not offering it as "legal advice") - perhaps the distributees (if they could only agree) could grant Mr. Doyle a life estate - this would leave them with the residuary title, but would leave him in possession for as long as he lives. Mr. Doyle is 85 years old, and while the reported offer of "five years and $250,000" might be a rough equivalent to a life estate, that's only on an actuarial basis - there is no certainty that he won
Nov. 3, 2016, 5:37 pm
Joann Prinzivalli says:
't live longer, or less. But a life estate would be more certain that he won't have to find somewhere else to libve when he turns 90.
Nov. 3, 2016, 5:39 pm
Realtor Website says:
[..]McNichols, however, failed to convince her cousins to go along with that plan, and so the four of them proceeded to put the townhouse on the market.[..]
Nov. 15, 2016, 9:03 am
jessica says:
I really feel that this will law needs to be challenged. They are not claiming the will is fake or forged. Just that it is missing 1 witness. So in essence they are claiming a dead mans final wishes are invalid. In addition, the mans constitutional rights have already been violated by prohibiting a marriage to begin with. Denying marriage has always been unconstitutional as the constitution clearly states equal protection to all persons. How is it possible to deny a man his constitutional rights and then punish him for it? Are there no laws against this? Odd there is some arbitrary law denying a dead mans final wishes but not a law to protect those who's constitutional rights have been violated for decades.
Nov. 17, 2016, 11 am
Sean says:
An update would be great. Any news?
April 21, 2017, 3:06 am
Properties says:
Hi there. I desired to inquire a touch something…is the subsequent a word press blog web site as we're thinking about converting over to WP. Furthermore did you are making this design by means of yourself? Appreciate it.
July 16, 2017, 10:54 am
Real Estate Miami says:
Hey thanks for sharing your experience with us. For best buy of home and properties and Apartments for rent is here Miami FL Real Estate and get direct leads from home sealers.
Nov. 20, 2017, 4:27 am
HomeIA says:
Learn about real estate investment in Minnesota from
June 27, 2018, 12:09 pm

Comments closed.


Schneps Community News Group

Don’t miss out!

Stay in touch with your community. Subscribe to our free newsletter: